Games Will Never Be As Deep

[Imitation Saccharin]

Video games as art.
I'll define art for this thread as deep emotional resonance with characters.

The "playing" aspect of games will forever make them inferior to movies as art. Simply because the average player isn't comparable to the masterful strokes and insightful jabs of a good director.

Hence the medium itself lends toward the story being a framework for the gameplay, and although games can be deep, they will need a schtick to "play".

The first time you've seen Luke blow up the Deathstar, it's an emotional high. The 92nd time you TRY to blow up the Deathstar, the response is "Fuck this!" followed by much controller throwing.

In summation, it is my opinion games as art should not be attempted, and games as fun should be the ideal*.

I'm aware of the contentious nature of this post, so I'll post Jill's Song to appease your animal revelries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUtFQec0phk

*The point of the thread is to debate the stated position in the OP.

 

[jim_doki]

By your definition games as art already exist. Grim Fandango and Full Throttle for two. Character development and resonance can occur within mechanics

 

[MarcusStrout]

Ok, lets say that, for instance, the gameplay was so totally linear and unintuitive that you basically had an arty director playing you like a sadistic asspuppet. THAT is not art.

You need to take a big fucking step BACK from the idea that art can only be DIRECTED by some guy in one of those preposterous folding chairs shouting in a cardboard tube.

What if you created something? Something unique and beautiful, reflecting what you yourself really felt was art?
Not Spore, I was holding out for Civilization CTP. But yeah, same idea, at least for one stage.

What if you had a gorgeous setup for a kill, and, Prince of Persia style, the guy TOTALLY GOT PWNED? That gives you a masterful high like no other.

If the game has a nice environment, awesome. But it's not ART unless you really feel you are there.

So basically, watch what Yahtzee says about immersion and Crysis and such. It REALLY does make sense.

Also, someone might want to get him in on this one, even if he just copies a paragraph from an old cartoon or whatever.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

By your definition games as art already exist. Grim Fandango and Full Throttle for two. Character development and resonance can occur within mechanics

My arguement is they could always be better achieved with alternative medium, as they must be worked into the mechanics rather then being the soul of the work.

What if you created something?

Then I'm a director. But the twists won't surprise me, the emotions wouldn't be as fresh.

I mean there's a pretty good reason we don't write our own books so we can enjoy reading them later.

 

[Zaleznikel]

How do you feel about games like point and click adventures, or other purely linear games? Essentially, you are playing under the directors control, you usually can't skip one step, or insert a cheat code to skip to the next level on most of these types of games, and there are plenty of linear adventure games where you can't even die or fail. I may be biased here, but when I was playing The Longest Journey, it felt more like I was guiding a character in her adventure than playing a game. TLJ, for me, was basically an interactive movie or book with simple brainteasers. Yet it is still a game.

TLJ, and many other games like it, Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, etc. couldn't be movies. There's no way anyone would have been able to write the witty monologues and the subtle humor of the game into a movie script, as plenty of it relies on describing each object the character picks up. I can't imagine an actor in a good movie looking at ye flask and then describing it for the audience as they sit there.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot a really important line

 

[PurpleRain]

Bioshock? Try and prove me wrong. You can barely get frustrated cause you can't actually die. Many times I was in awe over the art, or just found myself stareing at the visuals. The Objectionist outlooks, the references to great books, 1984, Atlas Shrugged o Big Brother does nothing for you? Well how about the horror made only by the atmosphere and less by scary things jumping out at you ala Condemned or Doom3. Soundtrack? Artstyle? Script? Still not convicing you?

What about Half Life 2 then. The brilliantly mastered story and script. The 'gritty industrial' musical score and the near perfect character development makes you care and feel for the game even the sixth time around.

Games are only getting into the swing of things by the progress of technology. While movies have had over a centery to master the art work of film and video, and books have had at least 5000 years minimum of development, games are just kicking off. Let it run off the ground a bit. It can only progress with technology unlike the latter.

 

[Alex_P]

I'll define art for this thread as deep emotional resonance with characters.

If that's the case, you've already got examples.

Like Torment.

The entire narrative of the game is all about you -- the present you (the player character) grappling and coming to terms with the past you (as reflected in basically the entire setting and all the other characters).

The combat mechanics don't do shit to make that happen, of course, but the general interface and approach -- the colors of the world around you and the endless conversation trees you can jump through -- do.

-- Alex

 

[Good morning blues]

So if "art" is "deep emotional resonance with characters," what does that make Guernica? For that matter, what does it make a movie like Un Chein Andalou?

Bascially, this is a terrible definition of the word "art." If we're going to ignore that, however, I'd suggest that the act of placing the player in control of a character's actions goes a long way toward fostering identification with that character.

 

[jim_doki]

im sorry, i have issues with your definition of art in that i dont quite understand it.

are you saying that you want to develop a deep understanding of your character but can't because the mechanics are restricting you?

because if that's the case i have to disagree. I empathise with Guybrush, Quote, Manny, Squall and several others because they are interesting characters. the mechanics i use to play them have very little to do with them in many respects

 

[Alex_P]

Then I'm a director. But the twists won't surprise me, the emotions wouldn't be as fresh.

I mean there's a pretty good reason we don't write our own books so we can enjoy reading them later.

For most works, a reasonably educated audience already knows what's going to happen. Does anybody watching Die Hard think Bruce Willis is gonna die? "Suspense" is more about how you get there than where you're going to end up. The details, the sacrifices. Video-game mechanics can handle something of that level pretty easily.

-- Alex

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

My arguement is they could always be better achieved with alternative medium, as they must be worked into the mechanics rather then being the soul of the work.

Bioshock? Try and prove me wrong.

Done?

 

[Alex_P]

So if "art" is "deep emotional resonance with characters," what does that make Guernica? For that matter, what does it make a movie like Un Chein Andalou?

The only definition of "art" that seems to work 100% of the time is "stuff that rich people like."

I hate that definition, of course.

-- Alex

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Ooookay. So we need to feel what the character feels for something to be art?

In that case wouldn't achieving a difficult task in a video game (such as blowing up the Death Star after the 93rd try) lead to a feeling not unlike what Skywalker felt for his triumph?

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

For most works, a reasonably educated audience already knows what's going to happen.

If it's really well acted, I'd be okay with a simple story. But I'd still prefer a surprise or an interesting characterization in my "emotional" movies.

Does anybody watching Die Hard think Bruce Willis is gonna die? "Suspense" is more about how you get there than where you're going to end up. The details, the sacrifices. Video-game mechanics can handle something of that level pretty easily.
-- Alex

I agree. Die Hard, Sin City, Terminator, these are all fun movies. But that's the thing. I expect them to be fun movies.
Any emotional connection is an added bonus on top of my fun. Like Conner in Terminator. By the end, I was quite sad the Terminator was going to die because the kid did.

But that's the point I'm trying to make. Fun comes first. It's nice to have the "Don't kill anyone" scene, the Sarah Conner scenes in the mental hospital, but at the end of the day the movie's foundation is still -Then he takes the minigun, wakes to the door, and....-

 

[Good morning blues]

So if "art" is "deep emotional resonance with characters," what does that make Guernica? For that matter, what does it make a movie like Un Chein Andalou?

The only definition of "art" that seems to work 100% of the time is "stuff that rich people like."

I hate that definition, of course.

-- Alex

I understand that art is difficult to define, but that doesn't mean that all definitions are equal. My point is that this definition is pretty useless, for these two reasons:

1. It excludes a lot of work that almost anybody will agree is art, including pieces like Picasso's Guernica, Michaelangelo's David, and every piece of music that is not a ballad that has ever been written.
2. It is not testable in any way. If a piece of art has characters, I can tell you that I identify with them and you can tell me that you don't. Therefore, if we insist on using this definition, all this thread will be is people listing well-portrayed video game characters and the OP saying that it could be done better in movies.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

1. including pieces like Picasso's Guernica, Michaelangelo's David, and every piece of music that is not a ballad that has ever been written

I know, I intended that to prevent people saying Crysis was so beautiful it was art.

2. It is not testable in any way.

No definition ever is. Language is merely a mostly-agreed to construct with codewords representing things.
Further, this is "art". Hence any discussion is inherently pointless.

So to ensure discussion, I gave this debate a bottom (the definition), and am in no way expecting any resolution (as such is likely impossible). Hopefully the fun of mental combat can outweigh the pointlessness of the endeavor.

 

[Alex_P]

If it's really well acted, I'd be okay with a simple story. But I'd still prefer a surprise or an interesting characterization in my "emotional" movies.

There are very few full-on surprises in film and literature. That's because most works say something and if you follow that you can tell what they're going to say next.

I'm trying to think back to when anything I've read outright surprised me in a big, meaningful way... hmm, you know, it would have to be like eight years ago or something.

-- Alex

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

]There are very few full-on surprises in film and literature. That's because most works say something and if you follow that you can tell what they're going to say next.

I'm trying to think back to when anything I've read outright surprised me in a big, meaningful way... hmm, you know, it would have to be like eight years ago or something.

-- Alex

That's true. But perhaps I'm exceptionally thick, as I never grasp the particulars before they're before me, and find the surprise in them.

 

[implodingMan]

Art is the expression and application of human skill and creativity.

Given that definition, then why cannot games be considered a kind of art?

Oh wait, you've defined it in a different way to suit your purposes. Fair enough. Personally, measuring how much you connect with characters is a very personal thing. The ending of Half-Life 2 EP2 was sadder to me than any movie I have seen in a very long time.

Spoiler

That scene could never be better in a film because of the helplessness it places you in. Throughout the game you are used to being able to handle things your own way, always being able to move, and generally being able to handle any problem. After all, you just killed an army of striders. When you are being held there, the developers did one thing perfectly. You can move, but not enough to do anything or block your view. You feel as you squirm back and forth your potential. You know that if you just had your Gravgun you could make them pay. If this was a movie, it would be sad of course, since you would probably be attached to the characters, but without the crucial feeling of having all of your strength removed it just wouldn't be the same.